yo yo, embryo!

Haven't written in a while? Why not rust off the old fingers and keyboard by blogging about complicated news stories? Here's one!

Judge stops federal funding of embryonic stem cell research

Ok, soooo, complicated no? There are so many things one could write, and that have already been written, about this topic.

• What's the big deal about stem cells?
• Why is this ruling important and what's the impact?
• Who is this Judge Royce Lamberth anyway?
• Who are the interests involved in this lawsuit and what do they stand to gain?
  
• ...and more!
  

The fourth bullet point is something that, if I was a journalist, I'd love to dig into deeper. I find the relationship of the players on each side to the issue interesting. For example, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are "a pair of researchers who study adult stem cells" (source). The suit is called Sherley v. Sebelius - Sherley is Dr. James Sherley, a scientist who does adult stem research....and whose program would compete with embryonic stem cell programs for funding. Also there are many religious activists who disagree on right-to-life grounds (like the group often cited as being involved in the suit, Nightlight Christian Adoptions). How is this relationship between science and religion shaping this issue?

Another interesting aspect is the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which Judge Lamberth cites in his ruling. Here are the judge's words as quoted in the article above:

"The Dickey-Wicker Amendment unambiguously prohibits the use of federal funds for all research in which a human embryo is destroyed," said the ruling by Lamberth, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1987. "It is not limited to prohibit federal funding of only the 'piece of research' in which an embryo is destroyed. Thus, if ESC [embryonic stem cell] research is research in which an embryo is destroyed, the guidelines, by funding ESC research, violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment."

Sounds like this Dickey-Wicker Amendment needs to be revisited. When I looked up "Dickey" on the The Genetics and Public Policy Center website, an article talking about it in the context of cloning is the first result. The Amendment was written up in 1995, which was a time when cloning animals bigger than mice was a reality (Dolly the Sheep was "made" in 1996). It was a big deal (I think this kind of cloning is cool from a scientific point of view, but creepy because it is creating an exact copy of another living animal, and that could definitely become VERY sticky if we go cloning human beings - with the intent of creating actual additions to the human population).

Another thing I looked up was a little history of embryonic stem cells. According to the National Institute of Health Stem Cell Information site, "Scientists discovered ways to derive embryonic stem cells from early mouse embryos nearly 30 years ago, in 1981. The detailed study of the biology of mouse stem cells led to the discovery, in 1998, of a method to derive stem cells from human embryos and grow the cells in the laboratory." So, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment came before embryonic stem cell research was a big deal. I think it's fair to reconsider its restrictions.

Why? Because stem cell research is important - all stem cells. There are plenty of people running around talking about how adult stem cells are the better option and can do the job, but I don't think that means we should stop there. This is science we're talking about - the discipline that has made, and continues to make, a great deal the human progress we love and rely on, possible. How can anyone know for sure that adult stem cells are the be all and end all if embryonic stem cells haven't had as much research attention?

While, I don't necessarily agree with them, I can theoretically understand some of the people who have moral issues with destroying embryos. And until the debate about when life is created comes to a consensus, the moral implications will continue to be an issue whether we like it or not. Therefore, I definitely think that the practice of utilizing embryos that would otherwise be thrown away is a fair compromise. Why waste something that could be used for research? Sure, we have no idea if embryonic stem cells will prove to be at the magic we all hope it'll be, but the thing about research is that, you never know what else you might learn along the way. And you also never know what learnings will lead to what discoveries in the future.

It kind of reminds me of the popular pro-life anti-abortion propaganda that talks about all the possible geniuses who are lost to society because of abortion. "What if the aborted fetus would have turned out to be another Mozart?" Well, what if the thrown away embryo turned out to be the cure for cancer? Both are pretty bold statements and kind of dramatic, but nonetheless, provide a similar comment about possible greatness that is being wasted.

Whatever the arguments, I just hope rational progress comes out on top here.